[Clavius]

No DA*-zoom works on full frame.

You have been informed incorrectly.

EDIT:
(I had to search for it...)

Look in this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

---

Last edited by Clavius; 07-23-2012 at 03:32 AM.

[andre-mz5]

The DA* 60-250 will work on fullframe

[LamyTax]

You have been informed incorrectly.

EDIT:
(I had to search for it...)

Look in this thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html

If you want to call "heavy vignetting" at the long end "working", fine.
?????? DA?60-250mm???????

It's certainly not something that'll help selling a FF body .

[Asahiflex]

Only a few of the DA-Primes work on it. Putting a full frame on the market without a proper professional lens lineup is a waste of R&D-capacity and money.

So you are now telling us that a Pentax FF buyer is just a Canonian/Nikonian with a different brand name on his/her camera and lenses? I find it offensive that I need to carry heavy 70-200mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 zooms to be called a "professional". Let me rephrase this: I do not want Pentax to become a Nikon or Canon in disguise. I want them to be unique in every regard.

"Professional lens lineup". Gone are the days that a Pro used his heavily-worn MX with just a 24mm and 50mm.

[Clavius]

If you want to call "heavy vignetting" at the long end "working", fine.
?????? DA?60-250mm???????

That doesn't make any sense, any vignetting would be on the wide end. Not the other way round.

[LamyTax]

So you are now telling us that a Pentax FF buyer is just a Canonian/Nikonian with a different brand name on his/her camera and lenses? I find it offensive that I need to carry heavy 70-200mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 zooms to be called a "professional". Let me rephrase this: I do not want Pentax to become a Nikon or Canon in disguise. I want them to be unique in every regard.

No, I'm not telling you that you have to buy a zoom. You don't have to buy anything. You can feel unique as you are, but please, don't define yourself by the brand you own.
Look at Apple, what once was considered "unique" is now mainstream. Be unique in your photography, don't worry about gear.

Having a full frame camera only makes sense if you have useful lenses for it. Many people like zooms to shoot with. The current zoom lineup doesn't accomodate for that, thus, a full frame body will not make much sense. The less units Pentax can potentially sell, the more expensive such a camera will be.

"Professional lens lineup". Gone are the days that a Pro used his heavily-worn MX with just a 24mm and 50mm.

"Professional" can be defined in different ways. One is by making income with photography, something which has changed much in recent years. You can be all nostalgic about the old days, but Pentax has to move forward. "Professional" also means having lenses that work (SDM failures are not that), a good service, and a great product line-up.
Pentaxians can only benefit from the current developments. If you know Pentax, you can be certain they'll not be just another Canon/Nikon-type brand. And they couldn't be successful that way, either (look at Sony). They'll have to find a niche.
Think smallest full frame DSLR-body on the market, for example.

That doesn't make any sense, any vignetting would be on the wide end. Not the other way round.

Zooms are tricky calculations (aperture-wise especially, which is critical for vignetting), might as well be that way. I don't have the 60-250, so I can't test it myself.
Anyway, it's the only lens that sort-of works. At least a standard zoom is needed. And it's not likey they don't have any calculations for that .

[wed7]

Another alternative is for Pentax to simply do a brush-up on the existing K5, reuse the 16mp, but upgrade the AF as in the K30 or even better - whatever that is, include focus peaking, include upgraded video stuff, and issue it as the K5s. Save the development dollars for the future FF model.

I like the existing 16mp from my quietly shuttered K5 and won't upgrade this time around in either case. But whatever happens, photokina and Pentax will be fun to watch

I am with you here, k-5 ii

[RobA_Oz]

They're not going to release a full frame camera this year. While they do have the capacity to do so, it's not a wise move as of now.
The reason is simple. No DA*-zoom works on full frame. Only a few of the DA-Primes work on it. Putting a full frame on the market without a proper professional lens lineup is a waste of R&D-capacity and money.

But that doesn't mean they don't have to release a "professional" camera this year. Think of what Canon has done with the 7D. Think 24 megapixel APS-C sensor by Sony (the practical limit to APS-C, resolution wise).

With Ricoh in the back, they're certainly going to release a full frame camera within the next two years. But first, there's a need for a few new DA*-zooms and primes (with better AF motor).

We have had this discussion before (several times), but prior to your joining the Forums. For the record, it's absurd to think that Pentax would talk about a new range of lenses before releasing a 35mm sensor camera, if they weren't talking about the camera as well. The absence of a suitable range of lenses provides no proof that a new camera is coming, or not.

Secondly, Pentax has many good past lens designs that can be adapted readily to any new 35mm camera. The Q was released with a small, but satisfactory range of lenses that required design and manufacture from the ground up. I don't believe we knew about them beforehand, either. Even if no further lenses were available at launch, there are enough compatible new lenses to satisfy some of the initial interest, and there's a not insignificant group of K, A/A*, F/F* and FA/FA* owners around, like me, who would be early adopters, at the right price and performance.

Nonetheless, I'm quite content with my K-5 for now, so I won't be too distraught if there's no 35mm Pentax announced at Photokina, but I won't be unhappy if there is, either.

[theperception2008]

That doesn't make any sense, any vignetting would be on the wide end. Not the other way round.

I think it's due to the lens being an [IF] lens. So the elements are at different angles and position within the lens body to get the FL that you want. In the case of the 60-250, the long end is reached by moving the major optical elements closer to the camera body, thus causing the front of the lens to vignette. That's from what I understand of the lens.

P.s. I am not an engineer, but if you ask me about the human body or how disease processes work I can help you with that :-)

[theperception2008]

Oh a thought occurred to me, maybe the MILC name change to Pentax has a reason, Possibly the R&D from the GXR project will be used in future Pentax cameras. I think that a Pentax GXR II with upgraded internals with a FF sensor unit that supports for KAF2. It would not be hard to do. There would possibly be a size increase, but if you think about it, you can have a whole range of different FF sensors to offer, with our without an AA filter, CCD or Cmos, MP variations. It would be a completely standout product. You wouldn't need to buy a D800E and a D800, just buy a FF unit with an AA and another one without an AA, carry both units, or just one. A photographer would be able to fully customize their outfit to their needs. When you want the crop factor, get an APS-C unit and you can use your FF lenses without a cumbersome tele-converter and no loss of resolution. It's just a crazy brain wave I had, that would satisfy the "unique" criteria that Pentax has made for itself...

[eddie1960]

Oh a thought occurred to me, maybe the MILC name change to Pentax has a reason, Possibly the R&D from the GXR project will be used in future Pentax cameras. I think that a Pentax GXR II with upgraded internals with a FF sensor unit that supports for KAF2. It would not be hard to do. There would possibly be a size increase, but if you think about it, you can have a whole range of different FF sensors to offer, with our without an AA filter, CCD or Cmos, MP variations. It would be a completely standout product. You wouldn't need to buy a D800E and a D800, just buy a FF unit with an AA and another one without an AA, carry both units, or just one. A photographer would be able to fully customize their outfit to their needs. When you want the crop factor, get an APS-C unit and you can use your FF lenses without a cumbersome tele-converter and no loss of resolution. It's just a crazy brain wave I had, that would satisfy the "unique" criteria that Pentax has made for itself...

this is the reason the GXR idea appeals to me (and many others here - I know Rico raves on about it as well)

They finally distribute them in Canada as well now, though Henrys didn't have one when i went in on friday

[theperception2008]

I love the GXR as well, and it holds so much potential! I would be more than happy to pick one up. At this point though it's slightly cost prohibitive to me, hell anything more than the bare essentials right now is a strain on finances :-(. They have a GXR M-mount module. Now that Ricoh owns the K-mount, a K-mount KAF2 module can't be far from realization. I would hope that they atleast have gone through some developmental discussions about it. Putting in a FF sensor would probably require a larger body unit that would allow for an EVF, like the OMD, with an optional grip for better handling and I think it would be a win.

Now here's a question to Faulk or anyone with optics expertise, Would it be possible to shorten the registration distance by optical element(s)? such as a lens in front of the sensor, to allow for a thinner camera? That would allow the camera module to be smaller. The K-01 suffers from the fact that the registration distance was originally designed for film.

If this makes no sense, please excuse the madness that is a result from being locked up and attached to books...

[eddie1960]

I love the GXR as well, and it holds so much potential! I would be more than happy to pick one up. At this point though it's slightly cost prohibitive to me, hell anything more than the bare essentials right now is a strain on finances :-(. They have a GXR M-mount module. Now that Ricoh owns the K-mount, a K-mount KAF2 module can't be far from realization. I would hope that they atleast have gone through some developmental discussions about it. Putting in a FF sensor would probably require a larger body unit that would allow for an EVF, like the OMD, with an optional grip for better handling and I think it would be a win.

Now here's a question to Faulk or anyone with optics expertise, Would it be possible to shorten the registration distance by optical element(s)? such as a lens in front of the sensor, to allow for a thinner camera? That would allow the camera module to be smaller. The K-01 suffers from the fact that the registration distance was originally designed for film.

If this makes no sense, please excuse the madness that is a result from being locked up and attached to books...

The Ricoh add on EVF is actually one of the best i've seen and is pretty well respected from what i see, I'm not an EVF fan but it would be a mandatory thing for the GXR for me. I think building it into the body may not be an option and keep size

[RonHendriks1966]

The compromise is called APS-C. I cannot think of a name for APS-H though

We could call it the cheaper Full Frame camera and market it against the upscale aps-c offerings from other manufacturers.

[Fogel70]

Now here's a question to Faulk or anyone with optics expertise, Would it be possible to shorten the registration distance by optical element(s)? such as a lens in front of the sensor, to allow for a thinner camera? That would allow the camera module to be smaller. The K-01 suffers from the fact that the registration distance was originally designed for film.

The best solution for this is probably to use a prism (or mirror(s)), but that would defeat one big purpose of a mirrorless camera.
- Less complex design with simplified manufacturing and less manual calibration required = lower manufacturing cost.

And in the end it will probably not make the camera all that much smaller. And Pentax will loose the option to design smaller, less complex lenses as on other mirrorless systems.